9 states back AZ in obama administration action against AZ

[Atencio 43]

the only part of the question even remotely related to constitutional amendment is the status of anchor babies. the rest is up to congress, and to the states.

the 14th amendment is under "due process", so the congress has the right to regulate the right given in it by passage of ordinary statute. defining the right is part of due process. there was no such thing as an "illegal immigrant when the 14th was written. therefore, there was no such thing as an anchor baby born to illegal immigrants. this situation is a development that the right did not address, so can be regulated by statute.

Kim Wok was heard before the classification of illegal immigrant was created, so it is not covered under Kim Wok, who was US born, anyway.

That is not true. The argument right now isn't about due process or the 14th amendment. It is about state vs. Federal powers.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's more from the Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the state affiliate of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers:

The AACJ amicus brief argues further that there's almost no way a policeman could possibly have reasonable suspicion that someone was in the US illegally:

In Arizona specifically, reliance on race, language, and dress as the basis for reasonable suspicion used to justify a seizure all but guarantees a constitutional violation.

In a 1985 class action against the INS for engaging in a pattern of unlawful stops to interrogate persons of Hispanic appearance, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hispanic appearance and presence in an area where illegal aliens travel is not enough to justify a stop. Nicacio, 797 F.2d at 703. In that case, the government also used the manner of dress as a factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis. However, the Court rejected that factor, noting that such "characteristics were shared by citizens and legal aliens in the area, as well as illegals. As the district court found, the appearance and dress factors relied upon by the agents 'are a function of the individual's socioeconomic status.'" Id. at 704....

The scheme employed by SB 1070 pays lip service to the constitution by stating that race cannot be the sole factor for making a stop. However, as seen in decades of case

law, officers routinely use race as the primary basis for a stop and cite "rote" factors as described in Rodriguez or "profiles" of driving behavior such as those described in Gonzalez-Gutierrez that do not distinguish criminal activity from innocent activity. All too often, our attorneys see cases filed by law enforcement officers of all jurisdictions where the initial stop was based on the driver's demeanor. Included in the list of factors to be used for determining reasonable suspicion include the driver looking at an officer in a parked vehicle as he passes and the driver not looking at the officer...

"Unlawful presence" is a highly technical term, meant to describe the status of individuals who are present in the United States without the proper governmental authorization. Just like citizenship, it cannot be determined by physical appearance or language, but is established by operation of law...

SB 1070 poses an immediate and irreparable harm in that it compels the unlawful detention of U.S. citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country. The prolonged detention requirement of A.R.S. § 11-1051(B) immediately violates the rights of every U.S. citizen in Arizona of "Mexican ancestry" or "Hispanic appearance." Although the statute allows a presumption of lawful immigration status if the Hispanic

citizen produces an Arizona state driver's license, there is certainly no requirement under Arizona law for a citizen to possess a driver's license when he or she leaves home each day. And as a citizen, a person of Hispanic appearance or Mexican descent, of course, does not possess valid immigration documents because he or she is not an immigrant.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Comment containing personal attack has been removed. Acceptable part of the post is returned below:

Justashooter: nothing about this requires a constitutional amendment.

287g. it already exists

Please keep this civil everyone and avoid the personal attacks and insults.